Cranford Taxpayers

We are a group of involved residents from the Cranford community who have come together for one reason — to be better informed about the decisions being made that affect the future of our town. This site is available for Cranford citizens as a reference relating to Cranford development. We do not support the solicitation of money nor are affiliated with any political party or candidate for elected office.
Contact: cranfordtaxpayers@yahoo.com

Frank Krause in his letter to the Westfield Leader ON 3/1 (link below) expresses his frustration about the lack of public input and discourse at the DMC Strategic Plan one-sided presentation. Residents were asked to place dots on DMC ideas to express themselves. Just the continuance of the lack of transparency, accountability and citizen input with the present Cranford Township administration.

Within the last 6 months a number of Cranford employees have quit. A few examples:

Downtown Business & Economic Development Director

Police Chief

Assistant Zoning Officer

Township Clerk

Tax Collector

CRANFORD POP.
COULD RISE 8 PERCENT WITH PROPOSED APTS.

By CHRISTINA M. HINKE

Specially Written for The Westfield Leader

CRANFORD — Hartz Mountain
Industries proposes to increase the township’s population by 8 percent,
according to its application to build 905 apartments at 750 Walnut Avenue.

Originally scheduled to be heard
by the planning board June 7, Hartz Mountain has requested to move its hearing
to Wednesday, July 5. Hartz Mountain wants to rezone the commercial property to
build the apartments, along with two swimming pools with two clubhouses. Deputy
Mayor Patrick Giblin told The Westfield Leader and The Scotch Plains-Fanwood
Times, “I suspect it [the application] will take several meetings.”

The Leader/Times filed an Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request, and subsequently reviewed the traffic study,
architectural plans and site plans for the property. Photos of those can be
found at http://www.goleader.com/ news/

Hartz Mountain is proposing a two-phase
build out of the property, with five apartment buildings in total, with phase 1
being built by 2019 and phase 2 by 2021. The triangular shaped property abuts
the Hyatt Hills Golf Complex to the west, the NJ Transit rail to the north, and
comes to a point at Raritan Road to the south, and fronts Walnut Avenue on the
east.

Two of the five apartment
buildings would be four stories, measuring 54 feet, eight inches high, while
three of the buildings would be five stories, consisting of four floors of
apartments over a surface-level garage, measuring 66 feet, eight inches high.

In addition to the apartment
buildings, the site would include two pools, two clubhouses, parking, new
driveways and a new traffic light at Walnut and Behnert Place.

The plan estimates the 905 units
would add 1,846 people to the population, increasing the population by 8
percent. As per the 2010 United States Census, the township’s population was
22,625, according to Wikipedia. Since the 2010 U.S. Census, some additional 600
units have either come on board or are proposed: Riverfront at Cranford
Station, Woodmont Station, the proposed Birchwood Avenue development, and a
development on Walnut Avenue off of South Avenue and another on Centennial
Avenue approved this year.

The proposed plan would allocate
15 percent of the 905 units for affordable housing. Market-rate units would be
a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments, and affordable-housing units would be
a mix of one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments. Of the market-rate units, 380
would be one-bedroom and 386 would be two-bedroom. Of the affordable-housing units, 28 would be
one-bedroom, 82 would be two-bedroom, and 29 would be three-bedroom. The two
clubhouses would measure 8,200 and 5,500 square feet. Parking would include
1,723 spaces within two garages as well as surface parking.

Hartz Mountain also is seeking to
make the 30.5-acre parcel an area in need of redevelopment, which could allow
for tax breaks to the developer. Hartz Mountain cites that it meets two
criteria for such a designation.

Since Bank of America has vacated
the premises, and LabCorps intends to close its lab facilities there, Hartz suggests that retrofitting a lab for
another use would be costly for a new tenant, and the office building once
occupied by Bank of America is out of date, has an odd, outdated layout, and is
not located centrally to walkable mixed use locations and transit preferred
today for office space.

Originally, Hartz Mountain had
attempted to rezone Hyatt Hills, but Clark Mayor Sal Bonaccorso said Clark
would only use that property for recreation use, as it is currently zoned,
Mayor Bonaccorso stated in his affordable-housing presentation on March 29.

750 Walnut Avenue is currently
owned by H-Cranford Conduit LTD Partnership, which purchased it in 1996, and
pays over $1 million in property taxes on the site. State Population Increase
records show that H-Cranford Conduit’s Principal is H-Cranford II, Inc.
H-Cranford II’s state filings show that Vincent Rubino, Frank Roscitt and
Phillip Patton are the listed Principals. Another registered corporation,
H-Cranford Limited Partnership, shows Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc. and
H-Cranford, Inc. as its Principals. Hartz Mountain Industries is registered
with the State of New Jersey as a Foreign Profit Corporation and lists
President Gus Milano along with Vice Presidents Frank Roscitt and Curtis
Schwartz as Principals. All five related companies registered with the state
are deliverable to Phillip Patton, Esq. at the same address in Seacaucus. Hartz
Mountain Industries is also listed with the associated name Meadowlands Mall at
Seacaucus.

CRANFORD—As so many did a year
ago, Joe LoGiudice watched as the rain fell and the water rose, turning his
property and others near it into one continuous lake.

“The water kept coming closer and
closer to my house,” the Cranford resident recalled one recent afternoon as he
stood in his backyard, staring into the swampy woods behind it.“Had the rain not stopped, it would have come
into all these houses.”

Cranford was the Union County
town hit hardest by Tropical Storm Irene, which blew through the Garden State
Aug. 27 and 28.Hundreds of homes and business
were underwater.Government buildings
flooded.It was a devastating
experience, even for a town nicknamed “Venice.”

LoGiudice is among the lucky
members of his community; the water rose to within a stone’s throw of his
Wadsworth Terrace house, then it receded.

But the 51-year-old doesn’t feel
any sense of relief, nor do his neighbors who survived the storm with little to
no damage to their homes.They’re
worried the worst is yet to come and think a high-density housing development—one
planned for a lot a block away from LoGiudice’s home—will be the reason.

The project, a 360-unit complex
that would be constructed on a 16-acre site in Cranford’s north side, is
derided by local officials and residents alike.They all worry it will make the flooding worse, upsetting a delicate
balance between wetlands and dry land.The developer and its experts say the building won’t cause any new
flooding and will actually improve drainage in some areas.But those assertions have been little comfort
to residents and township officials.

The fight to stop the development
on Birchwood Avenue—now closer than ever to becoming a reality—has been going
on for years, but it was Irene that electrified opponents.Their fears embody just how bad the flooding
was after the storm.

There was flooding in Rahway,
Elizabeth, Springfield, Union, Mountainside and other towns.Communities were bisected by
floodwaters.There was tens of millions
of dollars in damage.One early estimate
put together by the county’s Office of Emergency Management figured the damage
surpassed $100 million.The federal
government has pledged or paid more than $50 million in grants and loans to
residents, business owners and governments in Union County.

Cranford was, without a doubt,
left in the worst shape.Residents
canoed through the township’s downtown, flooding stretching for blocks.The municipal complex and police department
were underwater.Nearly 1,300 residences—or
more than 15 percent of the township’s houses—had significant damage, officials
said as the waters began to recede.Some
200 houses had flooding up to the first floor.

Brookside Place School, which had
2 feet of water inside it, was closed for months—displacing students and
teachers.The damage there cost more
than $1 million to repair, much of it reimbursed by the federal
government.The first floor of the
municipal building is still closed, the damage totaling some $3 million,
officials say.

But as bad as it was, they all
say the Birchwood development would make it worse.

The site, about 16 acres in size,
is in a quiet neighborhood thick with trees.There’s vacant office space on the property, which is next to an
assisted-living facility.Across the
street is the township’s recycling center.And behind the property are woods—very wet woods, some considered
wetlands—that stretch back to houses on Wadsworth Terrace, where LoGiudice
lives.

After Irene, much of the property
was underwater.So was Birchwood
Avenue.That’s why local officials
object to the housing project.

“The bottom line is:It’s bad environmental practice.It really is,” said Kevin Campbell, a
township commissioner.“You don’t want
to put a 360-unit development in a swamp, near wetlands, near everything
else.It’s insane.”

But there are several acres of
dry land there, and that’s where the developer would like to put the four-story
residential buildings.The company,
Cranford Development Associates, is a subsidiary of the Paramus-based S.
Hekemian Group.The company successfully
sued the township through a “builder’s remedy” case, arguing Cranford has a
legal obligation to allow the high-density housing so long as at least 15
percent of the units are sold at affordable rates.

Superior Court Judge Lisa
Chrystal ordered the township to change its master plan and zoning ordinance to
allow for the development, and she took away the authority of the local
planning board—handing it over to a special hearing officer who reports to her.Site plan hearings have been going on for
weeks, held in Superior Court in Elizabeth.

No one from the developer’s
office could be reached to discuss the project.Peter S. Hekemian, the parent company’s vice president for development,
did not return two messages left at his office.The company’s general counsel has been away on vacation.But the group’s plans are made clear in court
filings and through testimony during the ongoing site plan hearings in
Elizabeth.

D

espite the concerns of locals,
they say they will be able to mitigate any issues with flooding and will meet state
environmental requirements.They have
not yet received all the required state permits, and the height of Birchwood
Avenue will need to be raised to do so, but they believe they will eventually
be given the final go-ahead.

To avoid issues with storm water
flooding, the project will include a large underground storage system, said
Michael Dipple, an engineer hired to work on the project.It’s a series of concrete vaults called the
“storm trap.”

“Flow from the development will
first go into the underground system.It
will be held for a period of time, and it will be released at a rate which then
complies with” state standards, Dipple testified this month at the site-plan
hearing.

That system and other steps the
developer plans to take to avoid flooding issues miss a broader point, says
Richard Marsden, the township engineer.The site where the housing would be built is part of a much larger flooding
plain—one that stretches across Cranford and into Kenilworth, he said.It’s shaped like an hourglass, and filling in
the ground on Birchwood could create flooding elsewhere, in areas that stay dry
now, Marsden said.

“My argument is, by filling it in
here, you’re going to restrict it—it’s going to back up,” he said.

It’s that prospect—and the
memories of Irene, along with other storms of years past—that have so many
people in the community up in arms over the development.Some formed a group, Concerned Citizens of
Cranford, and have hired an attorney to raise objections through the state
Department of Environmental Protection.So many people were interested in attending the site planning hearings
that the township had a bus to drive residents to Elizabeth.Even Gov. Chirs Christie, who lived in
Cranford two decades ago, has weighed in.

“I’m concerned about this.I’m concerned about it from a flooding
perspective, in particular.More building
in Cranford, especially in that area, it doesn’t seem to me like it’s pretty
wise,” Christie said earlier this year on his weekly radio program, “Ask The
Governor,” on New Jersey 101.5.He later
added:“If this thing is built, it’s
going to make things significantly worse.”

That’s Liz Sweeney’s
nightmare.She lives on Wadsworth
Terrace, on the opposite side from LoGiudice.Sweeney, a member of the Concerned Citizens group, never had to worry
about the flooding.She will worry if
the development is built, though.

“I fear that the project is going
to alter Cranford forever.I fear that
it is going to flood everywhere,” she said.“I fear I’ll have to move.”

CRANFORD
— If the township is going to make a move towards changing its current form of
government, residents will have to make their voices heard on the issue or
forever hold their peace.

Last
week Mayor Tom Hannen said the township will be repealing a 2012 ordinance
approved late last year that would have paved the way for a charter commission
to investigate changing the current form of government.

Although
the ordinance is scheduled to be repealed at the June 11 township committee
meeting, Hannen said the issue is far from dead.

“In order to move forward we have to repeal the old ordinance that allowed us
to establish a charter commission,” the mayor explained, adding that by doing
this he hoped residents would come forward to say how they feel about the issue
one way or another. Right now even he is on the fence.

“I’m
not sure what to do. This is about Cranford’s future and how residents will be
governed, not just about the present,” Hannen said, suggesting whatever the
township decides should be based on input from residents.

“I
hope repealing the old ordinance brings out residents so we can hear how they
feel about this,” he said, pointing out that the governing body needs to know
how people really feel about the current form of government and if a change is
something they want.

But
that is not the only problem facing Hannen. Two minority Republican members on
the committee are strongly in favor of a charter study and the mayor said he
cannot ignore their concerns.

Last
year the Republican majority on the committee introduced the ordinance late in
the year, but later the matter was shelved. Support further weakened when the
Democrats took over control of the township committee Jan. 1, but Hannen said
the timing was just “all off.”
“It was late in the year when it was brought up, right around the holidays when
most people are busy. Now we have had the ability to think about it clearly and
the timing is better,” the mayor said.

At
the time, former mayor David Robinson, Lisa Adubato and Andy Kalnins supported the
measure while Democrats Kevin Campbell and Edward O’Malley did not. At a recent
meeting Campbell was still against changing the township committee form of
government, telling fellow committee members he did not see it as a “cure-all”
for the problems facing the township.

“I
haven’t heard anyone express any real support for a charter study or for
changing our form of government,” he said, adding that only two people actually
commented on the issue in the past. O’Malley saw things from a different
perspective.

“I
don’t see this as a public support issue. I see it as effective government and
effective access,” he said, mentioning it was not “effective” to keep bringing
up the subject every five or six years.

Hannen
is keeping an open mind but did feel bringing aboard an experienced, full-time
administrator changed the picture considerably from last year when the township
was in a state of flux.

“Having
Joe Hartnett has been a blessing. He is on top of everything and has everything
under control, which is a big change from last year,” the mayor said mentioning
that he believed a lack of long-range planning caused the problems the township
experienced in the past.

“We need to plan three years ahead, not one,” Hannen said, explaining the
township is a business “and businesses plan ahead more than a year.”

On the other hand, while Adubato admitted the addition of a full time
administrator certainly resulted in improvements, she felt there was no harm in
asking residents how they felt. Specifically she pointed to how inconsistencies
from year-to-year resulted in the township getting mired in situations like
Birchwood.Birchwood
is a builder’s remedy apartment complex development on Birchwood Avenue that
the township and residents living adjacent to the proposed project have been
against since its inception. As a result the township incurred well over a half
million in legal costs to fight the project, a number that some officials say
is more “like a million.”

The
question of changing the form of government in Cranford is not a new one.
Periodically the issue has surfaced and then gone off the radar again.

In
fact, in 2007 when the matter was brought before voters in a referendum, 75
percent were in favor of a change. Records indicated there was unusual turnout
when the issue came up on the ballot, considering it was not a federal or
gubernatorial election, with 3,611 residents in favor of changing the form of
government and 1,984 against.

This
all changed the following summer after a nine-member Charter Study Advisory Committee
spent months investigating whether a change in government was in order. In
August 2008 this committee recommended keeping the current township committee
form of government, suggesting the administrator’s role be extended to increase
efficiency.

Although
the community came out in force to support a change in government, when it came
time for the advisory committee to hold a public hearing on the issue, only a
handful of residents attended and the township only received six emails on the
topic.

Currently
the township operates a committee form of government with five members elected
at large for three-year terms. Although there is a mayor, the position is not
elected at large, but rather decided by the majority members on the committee,
as is the deputy mayor position.

There
are four forms of government municipalities can choose from under The Faulkner
Act, a 1923 state law that permitted towns to choose between four types of
government.

The
township form, like Cranford, is the oldest form of municipal government in New
Jersey.

Following that is the town form with the mayor and councilman selected in
partisan, not political, elections.

There
also is a city form of government with an elected mayor and council, like
Rahway and Linden, and the borough form, which is the most popular form of
local government in the state where the mayor is elected to a four-year term.

Springfield
is a year into the process of investigating whether to switch to one of the
three other forms of government, with a referendum expected to be on the ballot
in the November election.

A
charter committee appointed in January consisting of five members is currently
looking into all options and is expected to render a decision by August. Like
Cranford, this is not the first time the issue surfaced.

In
Springfield in 1958, a charter committee looked at other forms of municipal
government and made recommendations but nothing came of it.

In
1996, the issue again came up and a Springfield Government Study Committee
looked into how the township government was organized and the processes it used
but again, nothing came of this venture. This past November voters approved a
referendum by a 170-vote margin, with the vote tally coming in 2,391 to 2,221
in favor of looking further into a change. Even though political power on the
committee switched from Republican to Democrat, the measure did not die in the
process. A charter committee was formed to look into the matter and is expected
to return with a report by August.

According
to a report by the charter group, it will look into several issues, including
studying the present form of government by interviewing both present and past
governing body members, civic leaders and media representatives. The group also
will hold public meetings to inform voters of other forms of government prior
to preparing a report with a final decision on the matter.

The
charter group said after digesting this information they will decide whether to
retain the current form of government, retain it with modifications, suggest
changing to one of the three other forms of town government, or petition the
legislature for a special charter, which could include amendments to the
present town charter.

CRANFORD – An independent report commissioned by the
Cranford Township Committee has found that there was no conflict of
interest in Phil Morin’s representation of Cranford on the Lehigh
Acquisition site plan hearings relating to 555 South Avenue or the
Birchwood Avenue/ Cranford Development Associates affordable housing
litigation.

The report by Michael Ambrosio, an attorney and professor
at Seton Hall Law School, made this opinion on the basis that the law
firm of Florio Perucci Steinhardt and Fader (FPSF), which employs Mr.
Morin, withdrew its representation after the deed for 555 South
Avenue was transferred from Lehigh to Woodmont Proper ties in March,
thus removing a potential conflict of interest, as the firm would
have been representing both the developer, Woodmont, and the township.

Mr. Ambrosio also determined Mr. Morin could continue to
represent Cranford on the Birchwood/Cranford Development Associates
litigation and other unrelated matters.

Individual homeowners and members of the Concerned
Citizens of Cranford have been opposed to the proposed development of
360 apartment units, with 60 affordable units, by a subsidiary of the
S. Hekemian Group called the Cranford Development Associates (CDA).

Mr. Morin told The Westfield Leader that he was “pleased
with the professor’s findings that our firm had no conflict with
respect to CDA/ Birchwood and the site-plan hearings.”

“His credentials speak for themselves. He’s acknowledged
that our firm acted correctly. It’s exactly what I would expect. We
don’t represent clients in every aspect of their work (Woodmont),”
Mr. Morin said.

In a press release issued to this newspaper, Mr. Morin
said, “While I was confident that Professor Ambrosio would not find a
conflict, it feels great to be vindicated by one of the most well respected ethics
professors in the State of New Jersey as to our firm’s representation of
Cranford,” Mr. Morin said.

When asked to comment at the June 5 planning board meeting,
Mayor Thomas Hannen, Jr. said he had no statement to make regarding
the report.

Mayor Hannen said when reached this week for comment, “We
are moving ahead. We’ve already hired a new attorney for the appeal
(on Birchwood) and a new attorney to deal with the NJDEP (New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.”

Following his presentation in executive session to the
Cranford Township Committee last week, Mr. Ambrosio said it took so
long to do the research and review the findings of the Concerned
Citizens and information from (FPSF) that the report had been
delayed.

“We want to be careful not to paint with a broad brush,” he
said. He also said it would not be appropriate to comment on the
findings. “It should be done by the committee.”

Rita Labrutto of the Concerned Citizens of Cranford
said about the report, “I am disappointed that Professor Ambrosio’s
report doesn’t offer an opinion. The representation of FPSF on April
3, and April 22, of this year, in court, which is after the March 25
date where the conflict starts. Professor Ambrosio based his report
on the facts given to him, not investigation. I wonder if anyone told
him about April 3 and April 22?”

Liz Sweeney, also of the Concerned Citizens of
Cranford, commented, “Cranford Township shouldn’t have to spend
$5,000 on a report indicating a conflict. Steve Santola, who is an
executive vice president and general counsel of Woodmont, was at the
555 South Avenue site-plan hearing last August (2012). I find it hard
to believe that no one from Woodmont or FPSF wouldn’t question if
there was a potential conflict of interest at that point.”

In response, Mr. Morin said in a statement to The Leader,
“The same citizens who argued unsuccessfully that our firm had a
conflict at the Lehigh site plan hearings have concocted an new
theory that is equally meritless. The fact is that the Lehigh/555
South Avenue litigation was severed from the case and was finally
dismissed with prejudice as a result of the 2010 settlement by the
court’s order on March 22, 2013,” Mr. Morin said. “Professor Ambrosio
acknowledges that we did not even find out that a Woodmont subsidiary
purchased the property until April 12. Our firm presented the
court-ordered amendments to the master plan to the planning board on
April 3 at which several of the members of the Concerned Citizens
group were present and spoke but they raised no objections at that
time. Furthermore, the final hearing on April 22 was held and the
conflict issues were raised again, including Woodmont’s recent
acquisition of the 555 property.

RESIDENTS IN CRANFORD NOT PLEASED WITH WESTFIELD

By: Cheryl Hehl - Staff Writer

The Local
Source

Friday, June
14, 2013

Cranford residents living on Nomahegan Court
have taken issue with what some are calling ‘The Great Wall of Westfield,’ as a
builder’s remedy lawsuit results in a housing unit being built on the border of
town.

However, their efforts were for naught
because the hearing had nothing to do with the location or density of the
project, which Cranford residents said amounts to “the Great Wall of
Westfield.”

The proposed development of townhomes is
located at 206 Springfield Avenue next to residential developments on both
sides and a senior assisted living facility, which is on six acres of land.

At the hearing residents learned that
Superior Court Judge Frederic Kessler had no say over the project itself but
only whether ordinances fairly complied with the state affordable housing plan.
His decision is not expected before Tuesday.

The development, a 24-unit townhouse project planned
by Sunnyside Senior Housing of Westfield, became the subject of controversy
three years ago when it became clear their right to build affordable housing
was being impeded by the municipality The builders remedy case came about
because Westfield did not have an affordable fair housing plan in place under
regulations set forth by the state Council On Affordable Housing. These
regulations allowed the developer to bring the builders remedy case against the
town.

Although Westfield and the developer eventually
settled the lawsuit this year by changing ordinances that would allow the
development, Cranford residents living on Nomahegan Court, which borders the
property to be developed, were not happy with the end result.
At issue was the fact that the 24-units only included four affordable housing
units and none involved senior housing.

On May 7, Westfield held a public hearing
prior to changing the zoning allowing affordable housing, but residents
abutting the parcel of land were not satisfied.
Concerns brought up by the Cranford residents included water run-off, traffic
and changing the look of the neighborhood.

At this meeting, Westfield councilman James Foerst tried to assure the
concerned residents that the town did have their best interests in mind.

“We wanted to be good neighbors,” he said, pointing out that under the
settlement agreement, the developer was limted to 24 units, as opposed to the
60 they originally requested.

Foerst also said at the meeting that the town
was requiring the developer to have water drainage on the property and direct
the project toward Westfield and not Cranford.
“We were sued. We didn’t want to change the zoning,” another councilman
interjected.

Although allowed to express their objections,
in the end town attorney Russell Finestein advised those opposing the project
to either send their objections in writing to Kessler or voice their concerns
at a Superior Court hearing June 10.

The purpose of the Superior Court hearing was
to give a final legal stamp of approval on the ordinances passed by the
Westfield governing body in May. The ordinances, although approved by the
governing body, do not go into effect until approved by the court.

Kessler, a Cranford resident, while agreeing
to hear comments by objectors Monday, told the 15 or 20 township residents his
job was to rule on the fairness of the plan involving affordable housing, not
local zoning or planning issues involving the project itself.

Despite this, Nomahegan Court residents
elaborated on the density of the project, including that the 1.5 acre strip of
land was only 95 feet wide and 700 feet long. Their objections centered on the
fact the proposed project included three-story townhouses and a ground-level
garage.

Because the project is to be built on a hill
bordering Cranford, objectors living near the site felt the project was more
than an obstruction, it was “the Great Wall of Westfield.”

Even if Kessler approves the ordinances
required for Westfield’s affordable housing plan, the developer of the project
still has to go before the Westfield Planning Board for final approval of the
construction plan before ground can be broken.

CRANFORD — A possible conflict of interest on the part of the
attorney representing the township in the Birchwood Development litigation has
hung heavily in the air for months, but a report commissioned by the governing
body found no such conflict.

Although controversy has surrounded the complex and litigious
issue of the Birchwood development project for several years, a report issued
on Tuesday, June 11, by Seton Hall Law School professor Michael Ambrosio
attempted to clear the air of any possible legal misconceptions brought to the
township’s attention in March.

The Township Committee hired Ambrosio, who also teaches legal
ethics at Seton Hall, to put to rest accusations that Phil Morin, a former
mayor and township attorney, had a conflict of interest when his firm
represented Cranford in the Birchwood lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which the township has been embroiled in for
several years, involves a proposed development on Birchwood Avenue for 360
apartments, 60 of which will be affordable housing units.

Residents living in the quiet neighborhood of single-family
homes adjacent to the 15.8-acre property have continued to fight the project,
with the township spending almost $1 million in legal bills waging that battle.

In March, resident Liz Sweeney, a member of the Concerned
Citizens of Cranford, told the Township Committee she discovered what appeared
to be a conflict of interest on the part of Morin, a partner at the firm of
Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader. She claimed Morin, representing the
township in the lawsuit to stop the Birchwood development project, had a
potential conflict of interest because of the connection his law firm had in
opposing legal matters with Cranford.

She pointed out that, because Michael Perrucci was a developer
with Woodmont, there was a direct conflict of interest. Woodmont, she added,
was directly related to another builder’s remedy lawsuit brought against the
township at 555 South Ave. by Lehigh Associates. Given these latest
developments, Sweeney, along with others, including former Mayor Mark Smith,
felt the township had to look into the matter because of the connection the two
had in relation to the Birchwood development.

In the past, Woodmont Properties filed a lawsuit against Lehigh,
alleging it had a joint venture in the development of the South Avenue
property. Woodmont also noted in this lawsuit that it provided “substantial
assistance” in pursuing the builder’s remedy lawsuit against Cranford.

At the time Morin’s firm was representing Cranford in the
Birchwood lawsuit, Woodmont Properties was listed as a client on the law firm’s
website and Perrucci was a minority partner with Woodmont in two real estate
development projects. The projects included a 25 percent interest in a
Pennsylvania project and a 12.5 percent interest in a South Amboy development.

When this information surfaced, the Township Committee allocated
$5,000 to hire Ambrosio to explore all the facts and provide his opinion on
whether there were ethics violations involved.

Ambrosio’s nine-page opinion noted from the start that
conflict-of-interest issues are “fact sensitive” and can only be resolved by
painstaking analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
representation of a client.

He pointed out that, although Morin’s law firm provided 52 hours
of representation while his firm was also representing Cranford, following the
builder’s remedy lawsuit brought by Lehigh, his firm did not represent all of
Woodmont Industries partners and never represented Woodmont’s interests in 555
South Ave. He also found Morin’s firm did not represent Woodmont when it filed
action against Lehigh. It actually was represented by Greenbaum Rowe.

Ambrosio said, since Morin’s firm did not represent Woodmont,
there was no basis to conclude that Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Fader “had
anymore than a potential conflict of interest arising out of other unrelated
matters.” However, the Seton Hall law professor did conclude the firm’s
potential conflict became an actual conflict when Woodmont acquired title to
the 555 South Ave. property on March 25, 2013.

This conflict, he said, only related to Morin’s firm representing the township
in legal matters relating to the property on South Avenue, not the Birchwood
Avenue builder’s remedy lawsuit.

Ambrosio also pointed out that Morin’s firm withdrew as counsel
on the Lehigh matter after they became aware of the closing of title and the
public was advised of this on April 22, during the public portion of a workshop
session of the Township Committee. He also cleared up another legal misconception
brought up by residents against the Birchwood project, who said Morin should
have advised the township of his clients possible conflict.

“A lawyer or law firm is not required to monitor the activities
of its clients to ascertain whether those activities relate a conflict of
interest that prevents the firm from representing other parties,” Ambrosio said
in his report. “However, after a lawyer or law firm acquires actual knowledge
that the interest of a former or current client differs from another client,
creating an actual conflict, then withdrawal from representation is required.”

Finally, Ambrosio said any potential conflict of interest was
resolved by Morin’s firm withdrawing from representation, so the firm could
legally represent Cranford in its litigation in the Birchwood matter.

Morin said he was pleased about the report, noting, “While I was
confident professor Ambrosio would not find a conflict of interest, it feels
good to be vindicated by one of the most well-respected ethics professors in
the state of New Jersey.” Nevertheless, the former mayor felt the entire issue
could have been avoided.

“The same residents who were unsuccessful in proving our firm
had a conflict at the Lehigh site plan hearings have concocted a new theory
that is equally meritless,” Morin said, adding the Lehigh 555 South Ave. legal
matter was “severed from case and dismissed with prejudice as a result of the
2010 settlement by court order March 22.”

“As a lifelong resident, I am proud to be a part of Cranford’s
legal team fighting this project, and I have advised the Township Committee
that I will assist our appellate counsel in anyway necessary,” Morin said in a
statement to LocalSource on Tuesday.

The township, though, while not commenting publicly on the
report, did explain what would happen from this point on.

“The Township Committee has moved on and has hired two other
attorneys to handle Birchwood from this point on,” said Mayor Tom Hannen on
Monday, June 24. The attorneys, Jeffrey Surenian and Robert Podvey, he said, came
highly recommended. He did not, however, have any comment about the fact that
Podvey was the attorney used by the Concerned Citizens of Cranford in their
fight against Birchwood. But regarding the hiring of the two new attorneys, the
mayor explained why the township decided to go this route.

“We lost all motions to reconsider the Birchwood case up until
this point, so this will provide a new set of eyes,” Hannen said, adding he
believed there was enough reason to challenge the appellate court before the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Hannen explained that Morin would continue to represent the
township in certain Birchwood matters.

“Phil is finishing up on issues that Judge (Lisa) Chrystal said
we had to do,” the mayor said, referring to a judgment that came down in the
spring, paving the way for the Birchwood project to proceed to the construction
phase.

CRANFORD RESIDENTS OBJECT TO WF'S SUNNYSIDE DEVELOPMENT

By LAUREN S.
BARR

Specially
Written for The Westfield Leader

May
9, 2013

WESTFIELD
– Approximately three dozen residents came out to Tuesday night’s
Westfield Town Council meeting to object to the rezoning of 206
Springfield Avenue, and several other parcels of land to allow for
future development of affordable housing.

Public
hearing was held before final approval on ordinances effecting Springfield
Avenue, along with Central Avenue, New Street, South Elmer Street,
and North Avenue. A final vote on an ordinance that would affect zoning
on South Avenue was tabled due to possible pending development and
environmental issues.

Sunnyside
Senior Housing, LLC, owned by Ray Rodgers, will construct 24 units,
four of which will be set aside as affordable housing. According to
Councilman Jim Foerst, despite the name of the company, the new units
will not be limited to senior citizens.

In
January 2009, Sunnyside filed a lawsuit against the Town of Westfield and
the planning board alleging that Sunnyside’s attempts to develop the property
was “rebuffed” by the defendants. The suit was considered a “builder’s
remedy” lawsuit, as the town did not have an approved fairhousing plan
under regulations set forth by the Council On Affordable Housing
(COAH).

The
majority of the residents who spoke out against the rezoning and pending
development on Springfield Avenue were residents of Cranford, whose
homes border the property. Many of the residents cited concerns about
water run-off, traffic implications and changing the look of their neighborhood.
Several of the residents also said the previous owners, who sold the
property in 2004, would not have sold the property to Mr. Rodgers if
they had known his intent.

Councilman
Foerst said, “We wanted to be good neighbors” stating that under the
settlement agreement, the developer was limited to 24 units, as
opposed to the 60 they had asked for. He also said they are requiring the
developer to have all water drainage on the property and to orient the development
toward Westfield andaway from
Cranford. Councilman Foerst told the residents that the developer “used
COAH as a sword to get the town to allow greater density than what
would have ordinarily been allowed.”

Cranford
resident Gary Miller, whose home backs up to the property, said that
the new development would cause “sunset to be an hour earlier.” He
said that due to the property being situated on a hill, with his home
at the bottom, the buildings will “look like six-story buildings to me.”

Cranford
resident Steven Conti, who bought his house two months ago, said his
back yard would be destroyed by this development.

Roxanne
Rand, also of Cranford, said that the ratables in the Nomahegan Court
neighborhood are going to go down and “this developer just gets to
walk.”

Westfield
residents Ben and Laura Gomez, who live across the street from the
property, said they feel the property should remain a single-family home,
and that they heard the condos that will be built will be sold for
between $700,000 and $800,000.

Residents
of South Elmer Street and a property owner on Central Avenue also
inquired about the zoning changes, and potential development. According
to Mr. Foerst, development would be limited to residential only.

While
the ordinances were approved by the council, they will not go into
effect until the town has approval from the court. Following court approval,
the developer will have to appear before the Westfield Planning Board
for final approval of the construction plan before anything can be built.

Property
owners who are affected by these new ordinances need to file a
written objection, a form which they can obtain from the town, and will
have the chance to be heard before state Superior Court Judge Frederic
Kessler on Monday, June 10, at 9 a.m. at the Union County courthouse.

In
other business . . (continued at goleader.com, May 9, pages 1 & 12)

Hartz
has proposed to make the 30.5-acre parcel a residential zone where currently it
is zoned for commercial use.

Hartz
had presented redevelopment plans to the township committee for a
multi-building complex containing 905 multi-family units, including lowand
moderate-income housing, pools and a community room.

“When
would be the right time to ask for an environmental impact study?” board member
Dan Aschenbach asked. Board Attorney Mark Rothman said the board could broach
that during the hearing.

Mr.
Rothman said Hartz has already filed its application with the municipality and
it is deemed complete.

Hyatt
Hills Gold Complex located adjacent to 750 Walnut Avenue is a brownfields site
with monitoring wells on the Hyatt site to monitor the groundwater. There also
are monitoring wells at 750 Walnut Avenue, according to Mr. Aschenbach.

Mr.
Aschenbach believes an environmental impact study should be done prior to an
application being heard, he told The Westfield Leader. “But I believe the
conclusions of such a study will help in ruling this issue in or out,” he said.

During
public comment, Arlington Road resident Rita LaBrutto, also a former planning
board member, said she had concerns about the transparency of the planning
board. “The Open Public Meetings Act says your agenda should specify what you
will be voting on or discussing,” Ms. LaBrutto said.

The
planning board voted on November 21 to recommend to the township committee that
215-235 Birchwood Avenue be deemed an area in need of redevelopment, without
having the item on the agenda, she said. “It’s a big item for the town,” Ms.
LaBrutto said. “A grave disappointment for anybody who has been following this
since 2008, that the planning board failed to put it on the agenda,” she said.
“It is really shameful.”

The
board had placed on its agenda posted in the town hall on Monday that it was to
present a study on making a portion of North Avenue in the downtown a
redevelopment zone, Ms. LaBrutto said, but then was later removed. She said the
public had not been given the 10-day notice that the Act requires.

Mr.
Rothman said the board has proposed to have the study presented at its next
meeting on Wednesday, December 20. The study will not yet be made available to
the public, Mr. Rothman said, and it is not yet determined to be on the
December 20 agenda because “it is not yet final.”

“It
is something we haven’t even seen yet,” Board Vice-President Bobbi Anderson
said.

“If
a draft is made available as a draft to the board on December 20, it should be
made available to the public,” Ms. LaBrutto told Mr. Aschenbach. “I think that
is true,” Mr. Aschenbach responded.

The
Downtown Management Corporation (DMC) has held strategy meetings, she said,
where the DMC has suggested allowing a fourth story in the downtown. Ms.
LaBrutto said she is not a proponent of having a fourth story permitted in the
downtown in the zoning laws because it can add to traffic congestion, impact
parking availability and could add children to the schools.

“I
don’t see it as a permitted use on Springfield Avenue across from the municipal
building. I think it has its place, such as across from the railroad,” she
said.

“One
of the thoughts is to have additional affordable housing in the downtown, which
makes sense,” Mr. Aschenbach said

JUDGE RULES CRANFORD COMPLIANT WITH COAH

By DELL SIMEONE

Specially Written for The
Westfield Leader

CRANFORD
– State Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Chrystal has deemed Cranford Township’s
Master Plan compliant with the New Jersey State Council on Affordable Housing
(COAH) requirements. The township’s planning board amended the Master Plan on
April 3.

In
a decision handed down on Monday in Superior Court in Elizabeth, the judge
ruled that the township complied with a December 11, 2011 order which Judge
Chrystal imposed after the township lost a builder’s remedy lawsuit brought by Cranford
Development Associates (CDA).

“The
decision will result in an order of repose which will protect Cranford from any
challenges relating to Fair Share Housing until December of 2018,” said former
Township Attorney Philip Morin, who represented the township at the compliance
hearing. Mr. Morin also said that Judge Chrystal asked attorney Stephen
Eisdorfer of Hill Wallack LLP of Princeton, which represents the CDA, to
prepare an order of final judgment in the case.

Mr.
Morin also said the township can now go forward to appeal Judge Chrystal’s
previous decision, which ruled in favor of the CDA building350 apartments at
215/235Birchwood Avenue, 54 of which would be affordable housing units. The township is opposed to the project
because of flooding and contamination concerns.

Cranford has now met its
first and second round of affordable housing obligations to the state. If Cranford
has any third round obligations, Mr. Morin said they cannot be met by new
development since the township has no space to develop, but could be met by
rehabilitation of existing properties. As a result of this compliance, 24
affordable units will be allocated at the Lehigh Associates project, comprised
of 167 units to be built at 555 South Avenue.

Centennial Apartments Approved By Zoning Board

By NICOLAS FERNANDES

Specially Written for The
Westfield Leader

May 12, 2016

CRANFORD
— The site plan proposal for a controversial mixed use building that would
replace the abandoned Lehigh’s Auto Repair on Centennial Avenue was approved by
the Cranford Board of Adjustment Monday night.

The
site plan, by applicant 310 Centennial Avenue, LLC, showed a 1,952 square foot
building with one or two retail spaces on the first level and 20 residential
units occupying the second and third floors.

After
a night of complaints from owners of single-family homes surrounding the site,
the board came to the conclusion that the mixed-use building is better than the
other likely options—a Dunkin Donuts, a convenience store, or a vacant site.

“If
we denied this, it might sit like this for another 10 years,” Board of
Adjustment Chairman Ronald Marotta said at the public meeting.

Although
the residents were against the regulation, Mr. Triarsi explained that more
density in a downtown area is good because the new residents will utilize the
town’s businesses.

“More density in a downtown neighborhood is
better than less density,” Mr. Triarsi said.

Marie Mayer, the owner of the neighboring
304-306 Centennial Avenue, brought up that part of the development would use up
land that she owns.

Mr.
Triarsi denied this claim, but said he would speak to her about it if he sees a
document stating that the land belongs to Ms. Mayer.

The
Centennial Village Group asked if a crosswalk accompanied by a flashing
pedestrian signal could be placed between North Lehigh Avenue and Winans Avenue
similar to the one between Elm Street and Severin Court, one block away,
ensuring the safety of children crossing the street while walking to and from
Hillside Avenue School. The board will recommend that idea to the county, Mr.
Marotta said, because Centennial Avenue is a county road.

All
of the residents opposed to the plan were concerned that it would turn the area
into the exact opposite of what it was that made them want to move to town, a
quiet place to raise a family and send their children to a safe school.

Brandon
De Oliveira, who moved to Cranford with his family as a child from Hillside,
explained that Cranford is supposed to be a safe town for families with
children, not a place filled with development of rental space.

“Please
remember why you or your family decided to move to Cranford,” Mr. De Oliveira
told the board.

Mr.
Triarsi’s argument was that nothing can be worse than what has been in that
spot since the 1980s.

“There
cannot be a less efficient use of land than what’s existed on this site for the
past few decades,” Mr. Triarsi said.

Board
Secretary Jeffrey Pistol said there should be less residential space and more
retail space. “It’s a very nice building, but it needs to be smaller,” Mr.
Pistol said.

According
to Mr. Triarsi, it is not economically possible to reduce the number of units
in the development.

John
Quick, who lives on North Lehigh Avenue, said that he and all of his neighbors
have families with children, and that the traffic caused from the mixed-use
building will affect their safety. “It’s a beautiful building, but it doesn’t
belong in our neighborhood,” Mr. Quick said. “It belongs on South Avenue or
North Avenue.”

Mr.
Triarsi said Centennial Avenue needs a shopping district similar to South
Avenue and North Avenue, comparing the development to Cranford Crossing, a
residential and retail building that replaced a vacant lot near the train
station.

“That
was an area that was underused and now that area is the shinning star in this
community,” Mr. Triarsi said. The applicant will next seek approval from the
Union County Planning Board.

5 APARTMENTS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD ON 12/12/16 AT 20 NORTH UNION AVENUE WHERE THE CITI CAFE IS LOCATED (building owned by North Avenue Associates-Gerry Grillo & Jeff Scotti) AND IS NOW FOR SALE WITHOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED